News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[bzparkes]

Sorry, why would West Coast most likely not have been able to get any of the top 5 selection? This is just an assertion not backed by evidence

Why should they not have default access to pick 1, without having to 'bid' for it?

 

[Chiz]

So in that example, not only is North gifted 3 first-rounders, but the means to acquire the number #1 pick also, despite being far better than the worst team of the year?

Doesn't sound very fair now, does it?

North won the same number of games as West Coast. And have been down the bottom a lot longer. I'm not suggesting they deserve the first pick, but I don't think West Coast have a much stronger claim to it either.

 

[Chiz]

Why should they not have default access to pick 1, without having to 'bid' for it?

I see you ignored my question.

 

[bzparkes]

I see you ignored my question.

No. The point is why should they settle for a 'top 5' pick, instead of getting the #1 pick guaranteed, considering they were far worse than the other sides?

Honestly, if Harley Reid didn't exist, people probably wouldn't have an issue with it.

As another poster said, there was an auction for #1 but the owner was WCE, who won the spoon. It got passed in.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What issue would you be solving with a draft lottery?

Works well in the NBA. Not fussed with a lottery in the last 4-6

 

[Chiz]

No. The point is why should they settle for a 'top 5' pick, instead of getting the #1 pick guaranteed, considering they were far worse than the other sides?

With points, the bottom side could choose to cash in their points for picks 4 and 5 instead of picks 1 and 19 (these are about equivalent in terms of points value) - some sides would prefer this option, while others would go for pick 1 (and it would depend on who is available). It's not a matter of settling for a 'top 5' pick, it's giving flexibility to how sides use their draft currency.

Honestly, if Harley Reid didn't exist, people probably wouldn't have an issue with it.

I used Harley Reid as an example to highlight the variability in the top picks between years. If this season was a weak draft then WCE could probably get pick 1 for say 2000 points, with points left over to snare another top 10 pick.

As another poster said, there was an auction for #1 but the owner was WCE, who won the spoon. It got passed in.

Yes, but there's no reason why picks need to be allocated before the auction happens.

 

[Chiz]

Works well in the NBA. Not fussed with a lottery in the last 4-6

I'm not overly familiar with the NBA, but is there a problem that it is trying to solve there?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Simple question for you - which of the following options do you think most sides would prefer?
a. Pick 1
b. Pick 2 and pick 3

You don’t need to play silly games.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm not overly familiar with the NBA, but is there a problem that it is trying to solve there?

Teams that don’t make finals go in a lottery with a percentage chance of the number 1 pick. It is something to try and limit the “tanking”. Last year in the NBA it didn’t but it’s very rare

 

[Chiz]

You don’t need to play silly games.

Just trying to simplify things for you

 

[Chiz]

Teams that don’t make finals go in a lottery with a percentage chance of the number 1 pick. It is something to try and limit the “tanking”. Last year in the NBA it didn’t but it’s very rare

I think tanking was an issue in the AFL when they used to hand out priority picks. I don't think it is still an issue.

 

[Dogflogger]

I'm a pessimist but I just wouldn't trust the AFL to hold a lottery, It would be a great way for them to manufacture which picks go to which teams.

 

[Cleric]

Won't happen. The visuals of a North ending up with pick 10 instead of pick 1, where maybe there top 5 are a level above the next five, would never be good.

 

[the rookie]

Thanks Chiz. I like the thought. There's plenty of issues to fine tune, but I agree that the current arrangements are not granular enough to facilitate some of the trading and bidding. I know you were just using it as an example, but there's fairly widespread agreement that the gradient for points for picks is not steep enough now. Having Pick 1 is far more valuable than having 2 top tens, but the points don't reflect that. Change the drop of in value between places on the ladder and it becomes much harder to outbid 18th place for their favourite draftee. Lots of other tweaks like having a minimum number of selections, having a minimum spend of points, having to spend in brackets might also help if someone took the time to finesse this broader idea.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

On Gettable , Cal was asked what changes he would make to nga. Cal said the discount could go, NGA could go back to pick 20.
I don't hold much hope the changes or type of changes everybody in this forum wants ( like restricting to 2 picks to màtch).
I wonder why? Are some influential clubs happy with the current system?

 

[Jirik13]

( like restricting to 2 picks to màtch).

Limit to matching only 1 academy bid in round 1 if team finished top 4 or 2 bids if team finished 5-8 is already in place. Pretty significant rule, IMO.

 

[danster168]

I've got an idea. how about scrap the stupid father/son rule altogether. Who gives a stuff that Jack silvagni

3

Jack Silvagni

Age

28

Ht

194cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.9

4star

MG

176.9

3star

D

5.3

1star

K

4.0

1star

HB

1.3

1star

M

1.7

2star

T

0.7

1star

MG

91.0

2star

D

9.2

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.8

5star

MG

131.4

3star

plays for carlton or taj woewodin plays for Melbourne.

 

[rye]

On Gettable , Cal was asked what changes he would make to nga. Cal said the discount could go, NGA could go back to pick 20.
I don't hold much hope the changes or type of changes everybody in this forum wants ( like restricting to 2 picks to màtch).
I wonder why? Are some influential clubs happy with the current system?

probably more likely that the afl recognises the continued growth of the game in traditionally rugby states as a good thing and are smarter than to overreact to certain clubs outrage over an outlier draft crop from the gold coast academy

 

[Caligo]

On Gettable , Cal was asked what changes he would make to nga. Cal said the discount could go, NGA could go back to pick 20.
I don't hold much hope the changes or type of changes everybody in this forum wants ( like restricting to 2 picks to màtch).
I wonder why? Are some influential clubs happy with the current system?

I would say 6 clubs have received the majority of the NGA/northern academy/FS benefits. Of those, only Collingwood and maybe Sydney would be influential clubs.

GC, GWS, Brisbane and WB surely wouldn't be particularly influential.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

The AFL will overhaul the national draft to force clubs to pay a fairer market rate to secure father-son or academy players.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Caligo]

AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

The AFL will overhaul the national draft to force clubs to pay a fairer market rate to secure father-son or academy players.

www.theage.com.au

That article is funny. It specifically mentions all the ways the first round was expanded out to include almost half the draft, but completely ignored both the priority and compo picks, the only actual picks that were up to the genuine discretion of the AFL.

They really do their very best to look after NM.

 

[Chiz]

Thanks Chiz. I like the thought. There's plenty of issues to fine tune, but I agree that the current arrangements are not granular enough to facilitate some of the trading and bidding. I know you were just using it as an example, but there's fairly widespread agreement that the gradient for points for picks is not steep enough now. Having Pick 1 is far more valuable than having 2 top tens, but the points don't reflect that. Change the drop of in value between places on the ladder and it becomes much harder to outbid 18th place for their favourite draftee. Lots of other tweaks like having a minimum number of selections, having a minimum spend of points, having to spend in brackets might also help if someone took the time to finesse this broader idea.

Some really good points there. I suspect the initial points bidding system was not based on any sound analysis - with an auction you let the market determine what each pick is worth (which will vary across years).

The current reverse-order-of-finish draft also gives a sizeable advantage to the very bottom sides compared to mid-tier sides - with points you could have a fixed gap of say 150 points between each ladder position.

On your other tweaks, these are good ideas and things I've thought about but chose not to put into the OP. For instance, requiring teams to keep a minimum number of points in the bank for later picks would prevent a side from blowing all of their points on their first pick.

 

[Chiz]

Won't happen. The visuals of a North ending up with pick 10 instead of pick 1, where maybe there top 5 are a level above the next five, would never be good.

Not following, sorry

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

The AFL will overhaul the national draft to force clubs to pay a fairer market rate to secure father-son or academy players.

www.theage.com.au

I'm stunned, that actually sounds like they are going to make good, reasonable changes...

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

I'm stunned, that actually sounds like they are going to make good, reasonable changes...

I hope if they change to say a 5% discount, 2 picks to match they don't just leave it to 2025.
Make 2024 3 picks being allowed, although the Tigers wouldn't like that. It stops 2024 being a complete joke as well.